Yeah, I thought about that too. Somehow, I don't think the people in CR would be as enthralled with his antics as many here in the states seem to be...but, they do have universal health care there!
One More Reason to Pass Health Care Reform
- Thread starter GoodWitch58
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Yeah, I thought about that too. Somehow, I don't think the people in CR would be as enthralled with his antics as many here in the states seem to be...but, they do have universal health care there!
Dump this pile of dung and write a real bill for the people, not special interests and secret deals.
How come the people in power aren't listening to the overwhelming majority of folks who don't want this? There is a serious disconnect here.
Why even take a chance if you think you're right. If it is forced through and fails history will forever label you the fool, taught to schoolchildren for generations. The gov't track record for success isn't looking good here. It doesn't make any sense.
How come the people in power aren't listening to the overwhelming majority of folks who don't want this? There is a serious disconnect here.
Why even take a chance if you think you're right. If it is forced through and fails history will forever label you the fool, taught to schoolchildren for generations. The gov't track record for success isn't looking good here. It doesn't make any sense.
So if the US passes legislation to reform health care/bring it to more people, Limbaugh will move to a country with universal health care in protest? :rofl:
Government healthcare? The VA system is a good example of government healthcare.
Why not open the Veterans system up to people without adequate healthcare.
Everything is already in place.
I know I have been to the ER at a VA and had no line, no waiting. They have pharmaceuticals available through mail order.
This seems like a very no nonsense cost effective approach that could easily be used on a trial basis without huge start up costs.
Why not open the Veterans system up to people without adequate healthcare.
Everything is already in place.
I know I have been to the ER at a VA and had no line, no waiting. They have pharmaceuticals available through mail order.
This seems like a very no nonsense cost effective approach that could easily be used on a trial basis without huge start up costs.
Having the government pay for healthcare under the system that is currently in place will bankrupt the country. Forcing American to buy health insurance from insurance companies as they currently exist will bankrupt Americans. Medical care costs far more than it should; therefore, medical insurance costs far more than it should. The solution lies in an entirely different structure. Can anyone direct me to a simple outline of a plan that will actually work? And yes, I do believe all Americans should be covered, at least for basic care.
All comes down to how you're going to pay for it, and how you service all the new people. If you opened the VA up to an additional 50 million poor and folks with preexisting conditions, you would need facilities to treat them, and the money to pay for the services.
Napkin math shows - VA servicing 6 million people, at a cost of about 50 billion a year. So multiply that by around eight to ten, and you get to around 400 - 500 billion dollars. Last year the U.S. took in about 1.2 trillion in income taxes, so you would need to generate about half that in additional income to cover the added VA expense. Where would that come from?
Ten Wrong Reasons to Oppose Health Care
Ten Wrong Reasons to Oppose Health Reform -- Politics Daily
Obviously, it is your perfect right to oppose what Obama and Democrats are trying to do. And there are legitimate reasons to do so. Maybe you think the government shouldn't be in the business of trying to make sure all Americans have health coverage. Maybe you think that would be nice, but we can't afford it. Maybe you oppose raising any taxes or fees to help finance changes in the health care system, or you think any savings we can wring out of it should be used for other priorities.
Yet these are not always the reasons readers offer for their (sometimes ALL-CAPS, often vitriolic) opposition -- as anyone can see in the comments sections of every column I write about health care.
Here are some of the charges and claims, and why I think they are not the right reasons to oppose the health overhaul before Congress:
1. It is socialism. The Democratic plan would add about 15 million people over 10 years to Medicaid, the existing federal-state program now serving about 60 million poor and low-income Americans. It also would provide subsidies to middle-income families to help them buy private coverage. The bottom line, however, is there is no new government health program in the bill. The House passed a government-run plan (the "public option") in its health bill, but the Senate bill doesn't have one and the final product won't, either. Private insurance companies would not only survive under this bill, they would get millions of new customers. That doesn't sound like socialism.
2. It is a government takeover. The federal government would certainly be more involved in regulating insurance companies. The government would also set up and regulate a competitive new exchange, or marketplace, where small businesses and the uninsured could buy coverage. But the coverage would all be plans offered by private companies. The bill is, in fact, designed to preserve employer-based health benefits and the private insurance industry. So, increased government role, yes. Government takeover, no.
3. It is being "rammed through." There's a 100-year history of failed presidential attempts to achieve universal health coverage. The topic was discussed at length throughout the 2007-2008 presidential campaign. Since last January, it has consumed 15 months of hearings, legislating and debate in Congress. The House passed its bill in November and the Senate, by a 60-40 super-majority, passed its version in December. Take your pick -- a century, three years, 15 months -- but this doesn't meet any definition of "ramming."
4. Reconciliation is "ramming" AND cheating. Reconciliation is a Senate budget process instituted 30 years ago. Since reconciliation bills can't be filibustered, they need only 51 votes to pass -- so everybody uses them to get things done. A chart of 15 major reconciliation initiatives in last weekend's New York Times shows that Republicans have used the process many more times than Democrats. And we're not talking small ball. Republican presidents have signed reconciliation bills that, among other things, cut welfare benefits, expanded health coverage, raised taxes, reduced taxes and overhauled the student aid system. In this case, reconciliation will be used to amend a bill that's already passed the Senate with 60 votes. Cataclysmic, as Sen. John McCain put it? I think not.
5. It is unconstitutional. The bill requires every American to buy health insurance, including healthy people, and offers subsidies to help middle-income families. Insurance companies sought the mandate, saying it is the only way to keep premium costs from skyrocketing once they are not allowed to deny coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions, drop sick people or limit annual and lifetime coverage (all popular provisions of the health bill). The mandate would not be the first imposed by state or federal governments -- they already require people to buy car insurance, buckle seat belts and wear motorcycle helmets, not to mention make sure their children are educated. Conservatives used to promote the health insurance mandate on grounds of personal responsibility. It's the law in Massachusetts.
6. It has sleazy special deals. The most notorious are the Cornhusker Kickback for Nebraska (permanent federal payments for Medicaid expansion) and the Florida exemption (seniors there would get to keep private Medicare Advantage plans that cost more than regular Medicare and are subsidized by taxpayers). The final package will not have these special deals. For procedural reasons, House members must first approve the Senate bill, which does include them, but the "fix" package -- possibly to be voted on the same day -- will remove them.
7. It would penalize senior citizens by cutting Medicare. The Senate bill would save more than $400 billion over 10 years by ending subsidies to Medicare Advantage and reducing projected payments to insurance companies, hospitals, drug companies and other players (some have already agreed to keep prices down). Seniors in regular Medicare would get the same benefits they have now, as well as additional services, like free preventive care. The AARP, which has 40 million members over age 50, says it supports health reform because it will put Medicare on a sounder fiscal footing.
8. It would do too little to curb costs. Amazingly, some people argue both No. 7 and No. 8. There are, in fact, many provisions intended to control costs. They include financial incentives for doctors and hospitals to provide efficient, coordinated care (rather than getting reimbursed for every test, procedure and hospital readmission); research into what treatments work best; a focus on preventive services and chronic care; pilot programs on ways to limit malpractice suits and awards; and an independent advisory board to recommend cost-saving changes in Medicare. These and other cost-cutting steps are described here.
9. It isn't popular. Did voters in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts send clear messages -- by electing Republicans -- that they don't want this health package? Inconclusive at best. The economy is almost always the primary factor in election outcomes. Beyond that, Democrats had exceptionally weak candidates in all three states. The latest national poll from Gallup found slightly more people saying they'd advise their representative to vote against rather than for health reform. In a new poll from The Economist, 53 percent said they support Obama's proposed changes to the health care system. It's fair to say the country is split. In any case, Obama and Congress are not bound by polls.
10. It doesn't give us the same coverage as Congress. Actually, Congress is trying to provide similar coverage through these state exchanges. They are modeled on the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, which looks like this. The offerings are mostly from private insurers and every federal employee -- including members of the House and Senate -- pays for his or her own coverage. In time, I'm betting people who get coverage at work will be jealous of those who get it on the exchanges. They'll have choices, just like Congress does. Eventually the exchanges may open up to the rest of us as well.
Ten Wrong Reasons to Oppose Health Reform -- Politics Daily
Obviously, it is your perfect right to oppose what Obama and Democrats are trying to do. And there are legitimate reasons to do so. Maybe you think the government shouldn't be in the business of trying to make sure all Americans have health coverage. Maybe you think that would be nice, but we can't afford it. Maybe you oppose raising any taxes or fees to help finance changes in the health care system, or you think any savings we can wring out of it should be used for other priorities.
Yet these are not always the reasons readers offer for their (sometimes ALL-CAPS, often vitriolic) opposition -- as anyone can see in the comments sections of every column I write about health care.
Here are some of the charges and claims, and why I think they are not the right reasons to oppose the health overhaul before Congress:
1. It is socialism. The Democratic plan would add about 15 million people over 10 years to Medicaid, the existing federal-state program now serving about 60 million poor and low-income Americans. It also would provide subsidies to middle-income families to help them buy private coverage. The bottom line, however, is there is no new government health program in the bill. The House passed a government-run plan (the "public option") in its health bill, but the Senate bill doesn't have one and the final product won't, either. Private insurance companies would not only survive under this bill, they would get millions of new customers. That doesn't sound like socialism.
2. It is a government takeover. The federal government would certainly be more involved in regulating insurance companies. The government would also set up and regulate a competitive new exchange, or marketplace, where small businesses and the uninsured could buy coverage. But the coverage would all be plans offered by private companies. The bill is, in fact, designed to preserve employer-based health benefits and the private insurance industry. So, increased government role, yes. Government takeover, no.
3. It is being "rammed through." There's a 100-year history of failed presidential attempts to achieve universal health coverage. The topic was discussed at length throughout the 2007-2008 presidential campaign. Since last January, it has consumed 15 months of hearings, legislating and debate in Congress. The House passed its bill in November and the Senate, by a 60-40 super-majority, passed its version in December. Take your pick -- a century, three years, 15 months -- but this doesn't meet any definition of "ramming."
4. Reconciliation is "ramming" AND cheating. Reconciliation is a Senate budget process instituted 30 years ago. Since reconciliation bills can't be filibustered, they need only 51 votes to pass -- so everybody uses them to get things done. A chart of 15 major reconciliation initiatives in last weekend's New York Times shows that Republicans have used the process many more times than Democrats. And we're not talking small ball. Republican presidents have signed reconciliation bills that, among other things, cut welfare benefits, expanded health coverage, raised taxes, reduced taxes and overhauled the student aid system. In this case, reconciliation will be used to amend a bill that's already passed the Senate with 60 votes. Cataclysmic, as Sen. John McCain put it? I think not.
5. It is unconstitutional. The bill requires every American to buy health insurance, including healthy people, and offers subsidies to help middle-income families. Insurance companies sought the mandate, saying it is the only way to keep premium costs from skyrocketing once they are not allowed to deny coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions, drop sick people or limit annual and lifetime coverage (all popular provisions of the health bill). The mandate would not be the first imposed by state or federal governments -- they already require people to buy car insurance, buckle seat belts and wear motorcycle helmets, not to mention make sure their children are educated. Conservatives used to promote the health insurance mandate on grounds of personal responsibility. It's the law in Massachusetts.
6. It has sleazy special deals. The most notorious are the Cornhusker Kickback for Nebraska (permanent federal payments for Medicaid expansion) and the Florida exemption (seniors there would get to keep private Medicare Advantage plans that cost more than regular Medicare and are subsidized by taxpayers). The final package will not have these special deals. For procedural reasons, House members must first approve the Senate bill, which does include them, but the "fix" package -- possibly to be voted on the same day -- will remove them.
7. It would penalize senior citizens by cutting Medicare. The Senate bill would save more than $400 billion over 10 years by ending subsidies to Medicare Advantage and reducing projected payments to insurance companies, hospitals, drug companies and other players (some have already agreed to keep prices down). Seniors in regular Medicare would get the same benefits they have now, as well as additional services, like free preventive care. The AARP, which has 40 million members over age 50, says it supports health reform because it will put Medicare on a sounder fiscal footing.
8. It would do too little to curb costs. Amazingly, some people argue both No. 7 and No. 8. There are, in fact, many provisions intended to control costs. They include financial incentives for doctors and hospitals to provide efficient, coordinated care (rather than getting reimbursed for every test, procedure and hospital readmission); research into what treatments work best; a focus on preventive services and chronic care; pilot programs on ways to limit malpractice suits and awards; and an independent advisory board to recommend cost-saving changes in Medicare. These and other cost-cutting steps are described here.
9. It isn't popular. Did voters in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts send clear messages -- by electing Republicans -- that they don't want this health package? Inconclusive at best. The economy is almost always the primary factor in election outcomes. Beyond that, Democrats had exceptionally weak candidates in all three states. The latest national poll from Gallup found slightly more people saying they'd advise their representative to vote against rather than for health reform. In a new poll from The Economist, 53 percent said they support Obama's proposed changes to the health care system. It's fair to say the country is split. In any case, Obama and Congress are not bound by polls.
10. It doesn't give us the same coverage as Congress. Actually, Congress is trying to provide similar coverage through these state exchanges. They are modeled on the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, which looks like this. The offerings are mostly from private insurers and every federal employee -- including members of the House and Senate -- pays for his or her own coverage. In time, I'm betting people who get coverage at work will be jealous of those who get it on the exchanges. They'll have choices, just like Congress does. Eventually the exchanges may open up to the rest of us as well.
Last edited:
I can think of a few good places to start - Create a new medical governing body that holds sway over court ruling on malpractice suits, and cap malpractive payouts and the rates laywers can charge.
Let the government do what it does best - nationalize the administrative overhead associated with private care - health records, filing, information transfer, etc. through some sort of independent body that isn't run by elected officials. Let universities use that information to do research to improve our system and quality of care.
Open up insurance competition across state lines and eliminate anti-trust protections health insurers enjoy.
Another change I'd like to see, but I'm not sure how to do it - allow americans to purchase drugs from outside the country. We currently subsidize the entire world on drug purchases - if we opened that up, drug companies couldn't gouge americans to pay for the drugs they sell in countries that regulate drug prices. Force those other folks to pay full price or go without, which would bring our drug costs way down.